A factor analysis of the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND)

Abstract

Psychometric study of the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) provides insight into its structure and the dimensions of nicotine addiction it assesses. We evaluated the factor structure of the FTND in 541 research volunteers, most with histories of polysubstance use. Tetrachoric and phi correlation techniques were utilized and promax- and varimax-rotated solutions are reported. Two factors were found. Factor 1 was defined by questions regarding time to first cigarette in after waking, which cigarette is most preferred, and prominence of morning smoking. Factor 2 was defined by questions regarding difficulty refraining from smoking, amount smoked, and smoking while ill. The question "How soon on waking do you smoke your first cigarette?" loaded substantially on both Factor 2 and Factor 1. Repeating the analyses after stratification by gender did not change the results. The factor structure from our sample population was similar to results reported by previous studies with different types of populations. We propose that Factor 1 assesses the degree of urgency to restore nicotine levels to a given threshold after nighttime abstinence, whereas Factor 2 reflects the persistence with which nicotine levels are maintained at about that threshold during waking hours. Thus, the FTND may assess distinguishable self-reportable pharmacological dimensions of nicotine addiction. These two dimensions may provide indirect assessment of a smoker's daily nicotine intake. Testing this hypothesis requires correlation of biomarkers and responses to specific items of the FTND.

The Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence: Do revisions in the item scoring enhance the psychometric properties?

“…Consistent with prior investigations, PCA with varimax rotation was used as the primary analytic method to allow for comparisons with other factor analytic studies (Heatherton et al, 1991; Payne et al, 1994, Radzius et al, 2003). Analyses were repeated using PAF to assess for consistency in factor structure across analytic approaches.…”

“…For instance, Radzius, Gallo, Epstein, Gorelick, Cadet et al (2003) argued that the FTND questions with the yes or no forced-response may not reflect “true dichotomies”, suggesting that these questions may actually have a normal distribution of thresholds in which one may respond, thereby reflecting a dimensional construct. However, given the format of the question, the potential dimensional nature of the construct can not be examined.…”

“…Although the scale was designed to measure a unidimensional construct of nicotine dependence (Fagerström, 1978), findings from factor analytic studies have reported the latent structure as a unidimensional (Etter, VuDuc, & Perneger, 1999) and multidimensional, reflecting a two-factor structure (Haddock et al, 1999; Payne et al, 1994; Radzius et al, 2003; Steinberg et al, 2005). The use of forced choice items in factor analytic studies may also limit the interpretability of the factor solution.…”

Relationships Between Drinking Motives and Smoking Expectancies Among Daily Smokers Who Are Also Problem Drinkers

“…The FTND has good psychometric properties (Radzius et al, 2003), exhibits positive relations with key smoking variables, and has high test-retest reliability (Heatherton, et al, 1991; Pomerleau, Carton, Lutzke, Flessland, & Pomerleau, 1994). The FTND score ranges from 0 to 10, and higher scores suggest greater dependence (Fagerström, Heatherton, & Kozlowski, 1990).…”

An Examination of the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence Among Concurrent Tobacco and Khat Users

“…Principal component analysis was conducted to examine the factor structure of FTND in light of findings that the instrument has two subcomponents; one dimension is associated with patterns of smoking during the day and the other reflects smoking patterns in the morning after nighttime abstinence (Richardson & Ratner 2005; Chabrol et al 2003; Radzius et al 2003). Promax with Kaiser Normalization was used for the rotation method as it has been shown to have better loading structures than the Varimax method solutions (Radzius et al 2003). Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure was calculated to test the sampling adequacy of the analysis.…”